A probabilistic detailed level approach to floodrisk assessment in the
Scheldt estuary
Joris BLANCKAERT(1) (contact author), Lieve AUDOORN(2), Dirk BULCKAEN(1), Wim DAUWE(3)
(1) International Marine and Dredging Consultants (IMDC), Wilrijkstraat 37, B-2140 Antwerp, jbl.imdc@technum.be,
www.imdc.be
(2) University of Ghent, Coupure Links 653, B-9000 Ghent
(3) AWZ, Flemish Community, Copernicuslaan 1 box 13, B-2000 Antwerp
1. INTRODUCTION
As part of a cost-benefit analysis, floodrisk has to be
calculated in the Flemish part of the Scheldt estuary
over different alternative flood protecting layouts,
each of which implemented in a highly detailed
numerical 1D hydrodynamic model of the Scheldt
basin. Since floodrisk is calculated by integrating all
potential inundation damage over its frequency
domain, also extreme events (10-4/year and beyond)
must be taken into consideration. Therefore an
extreme value analysis of the model boundary
conditions, composed of a possibly joint occurrence
of major wind velocities and high water levels at the
downstream boundary and big run-off at the upstream
boundary, is necessary.
In order to compute the inundation damage
probabilities one of these two simplified
methodologies are commonly adopted : (1) using
simplified boundary conditions, e.g. a limited number
of design storms with a set return period, which are
computed with the detailed hydrodynamic model ; (2)
applying the full joint probability distributions of the
boundary conditions, which are transferred to flood
depths and damage by means of a simplified
‘hydrodynamic’ model, e.g. a response surface.
Simplified methodologies are practical, but involve
some major disadvantages : design storm-events
usually don’t keep the set return period translating
along the river, simplified hydrodynamic models never
meet the detailed model’s accuracy due to nonlinear
hydrodynamic effects and topographical diversity, not
to mention how to deal with uncertainties,...
This paper presents a fully probabilistic approach to
calculate floodrisk by computing storm-events with a
detailed hydrodynamic model, whereas the storm-
events are generated by means of a stochastic storm-
event generation model, fed by joint probability
distributions of 13 hydrometeorological variables.
2. METHODOLOGY
The stochastic storm-event generation model needs
the capability to create any physically conceivable
boundary condition (occurrence of high water levels,
big run-off and major wind speed, whether or not
simultaneous) of the Scheldt. This is achieved by
varying all major storm-parameters affecting Scheldt
water levels according to their probability distribution.
An exploratory data analysis and trial runs by the
hydrodynamic model revealed those dominant
variables, which can be classified as primary or
secundary variables, the latter being dependent on at
least one of the primary ones and statistically
modelled by conditional probability distributions. An
overview of the identified variables is mentioned
below, and graphically shown in Figure 1 :
main variables :
(i) astronomical high water level (AHW) :
determined by 94 harmonic constituents, ending in
13173 possible values for AHW ;
(ii) hourly average wind direction (r) :
establishes the wind setup in the Scheldt ; available
multivariate dataset of 14 years ;
(iii) maximum hourly average wind velocity (v)
in the course of the storm-event : POT-values
selected out of the available multivariate dataset of 14
years ;
(iv) maximum normalized 10’ storm surge
(S0max) in the course of te storm-event : POT-values
selected out of the available multivariate dataset of 14
years ; to allow for the nonlinear surge-tide interaction
the storm surge (S(t)), which is computed as
astronomic tide (Ah(t)) substracted from water level
(h(t)), has been normalized to a depth-independent
variable [1] ;
(v) maximum daily average discharge (Q)
during run-off : POT-values selected out of the
available multivariate dataset of 14 years.
The first main variable was handled independently.
The latter 4 were modelled in a multivariate
generalized extreme value distribution, using the
conditional expansion formula :
( ) ( )(
f r , v, S 0max , Q = f (r ) f v, S 0max r f Q r , v, S 0max )
secondary variables :
(vi) tidal amplitude A : conditional distribution
on AHW, determined by 94 harmonic constituents ;
(vii) standardized tidal curve Ah(t) : conditional
distribution on AHW, determined by 94 harmonic
constituents ;
(viii) standardized time profile v(t) : conditional
distribution on v, computed of a 40 years hourly
average dataset ;
(ix) standardized time profile S0(t) : conditional
distribution on S0, computed of a 40 years 10’ dataset ;
(x) standardized hydrograph q(t) : conditional
distribution on Q, computed of a 14 years daily
average dataset ;
(xi) time lag ∆tS0-AHW between S0 and AHW :
conditional distribution on AHW ;
(xii) time lag ∆tS0-v between S0 and v :
conditional distribution on both of them ;
(xiii) time lag ∆tS0-Q between S0 and Q :
conditional distribution on both of them.
Standardization means that the involved time-series
are scaled to maximum 1 and minimum 0. Figure 2
shows the graphical definition of the above-
mentioned variables.
All probability distributions are calculated with normal
distributed confidence interval around the mean
distribution parameter estimate.
dataset of HW at the downstream boundary condition
site has 40 years of data, which has first been filtered
out of sea level rise effects. From Figure 3 one can
establish a reasonable match with respect to the
substantial extrapolation.
800
extreme events (POT), time span 1960-2000

fitting of extreme value distribution to the extreme events

750
Monte Carlo synthetic storm samples
m
a
i
n
v
a
r
i
a
b
l
e
s

r
d
e
p
e
n
d
e
n
t

water level [cm]

700
i
n
d
e A
p H
e W
n
d
e
n
t

jt
or
ii
nb
tu
w

S0
d
i
s

t
i
o
n
650

Q
600

550
1 10 100 1000 10000
q
(
t
)

S0
(
t
)
return period [years]
w
(
t
)

tS
A

0
-
Q

tS

∆
Figure 3 : comparison of Monte Carlo storm samples
0
-
A
H
W
∆
tSa
A
h
(
t
)

with gauged HW
0
-
w

∆
d
e
p
e
n
d
e
n
t
s
e
c
o
n
d
r
y
v
a
r
i
a
b
l
e
s

4. RESULTS
Figure 1 : variables classification
Hydrodynamic simulation of all storm-event samples
results in an equal amount of flood maps of the
astronomic tide Ah(t) Scheldt-catchment, which enables to compute a flood-
normalized surge S0(t)
water level h(t)
damage probability distribution. At the time of
wind velocity v(t) writing this abstract the hydrodynamic computations
discharge q(t) are being processed. Results are to be expected within
AHW a couple of months.

5. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
max
S0
The research in this project is funded by the Flemish
∆tS-AHW Community (Ministry of Public Works), as part of the
∆tS-Q
∆tS-v time cost-benefit analysis in the framework of the Sigma-
plan, a flood protecting scheme for the Flemish part
Figure 2 : graphical definition of variables of the Scheldt catchment.
The authors would like to thank Fernando Pereira,
and Steven Smets at IMDC for setting up the
Monte Carlo storm-event generator hydrodynamic model.
13 quasi random number sequences (100000 numbers
each) result through the probability distributions into 6. REFERENCES
13 sequences of hydrometeorological variables. Next
we multiply each S0-sample by its corresponding [1] Silvester R., 1974, Coastal Engineering 2, Elsevier
standard time profile sample, do the same with AHW Scientific Publishing Company
and its corresponding standard tidal curve sample, and
add up those to time series taking into account the
time lag ∆tS0-AHW, which ends (after denormalization
of S0) in a water level time series h(t). Analogously
calculations for the wind and the upstream run-off
lead to a complete sample set of boundary conditions
for hydrodynamic model computation.
In total 100000 extreme surge/wind/run-off storm-
event samples are designed for the hydrodynamic
Monte Carlo simulation.

3. EXTRAPOLATION ABILITY CHECK

Because of the fairly big number of variables and the

somewhat limited length of the multivariate dataset
(14 years) the extrapolation of the joint extreme value
probability distribution to very extreme events can
become uncertain. Hence, it is useful to compare the
frequency distribution of the Monte Carlo storm-
event samples maxima with the gauged high water
levels (HW), as shown in Figure 3. The available